Re: [gentoo-dev] Optional Package Dependencies for netscape-flash -> libflashsupport

[Jim Ramsay]

Olivier Crête wrote:
> On Fri, 2007-11-05 at 13:19 -0600, Jim Ramsay wrote:
> > Olivier Crête wrote:
> > > On Fri, 2007-11-05 at 12:12 -0600, Jim Ramsay wrote:
> > > > Josh Saddler wrote:
> > > > > Jim Ramsay wrote:
> > > > > > I suppose I could also propose:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > 4) netscape-flash just RDEPENDS on libflashsupport all the
> > > > > > time. It's certainly not a large library to be added on.
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > That is a terrible idea. Don't make it "depend" on something
> > > > > that it clearly does *not* depend on. Flash works just fine
> > > > > without the optional add-ons, and those are *definitely*
> > > > > optional. I've never needed libflashsupport and would prefer
> > > > > not seeing useless cruft attached to a perfectly working
> > > > > Flash installation.
> > > >
> > > > Point taken - If you don't want the extra features you don't
> > > > want libflashsupport at all.
> > > >
> > > > I could make it so that if all of the USE flags for
> > > > libflashsupport are turned off it doesn't actually install the
> > > > library at all, just gets added to the list of installed
> > > > packages.
> > > >
> > > > > If you're going to add it to USE, then make sure it's *not*
> > > > > on by default, thanks.
> > > >
> > > > This way it will adhere to your current set of global USE
> > > > flags. If you have pulseaudio, esd, oss, ssl, or gnutls on
> > > > globally, it will install libflashsupport with the appropriate
> > > > hooks in it.  If they are all off (either globally or
> > > > specifically for libflashsupport) you will just get the same
> > > > old netscape-flash with no add-ons.
> > > >
> > > > Is this a worthy compromise?
> > >
> > > This seems even worse.. I think either having one local use flag
> > > in netscape-flash is probably the best solution.. The second best
> > > is to have all of the use flags and RDEPEND on flash-support if
> > > any is enabled.
> >
> > Can you explain what you mean by "even worse"?  I think my latest
> > solution is more correct than any of the others yet proposed.  In
> > fact, here's another small improvement on it:
> >
> > Have netscape-flash with IUSE="vanilla" (by default it is off),
> > which when enabled will not pull in libflashsupport.
>
> flashsupport should be disabled by default. I still think you should
> add a positive use flag to netscape-flash (call it flashsupport or or
> a combination of esd/ssl/gnutls/etc).

I disagree with you here.  I believe it should be installed by default
because it would then install by default any optional features that
a user has enabled in his/her global USE flags.  Which I argue is the
expected outcome of installing any package.

I guess I still don't see what the benefit would be of having it
disabled by default - It would just be making more work for users who
want the added features.  If you have a compelling argument for your
side that I'm not seeing, please let me know what it is.

> > This meets the following goals:
> >
> > 1) It makes it easy for "regular" users to get netscape-flash with
> > any additions required by any global USE flags in exactly one step:
> >  - emerge netscape-flash
> > This is my #1 goal, otherwise I'd just have 'libflashsupport' as its
> > own separate package and those "in the know" would install it
> > separately if they want any of the extra features. But users should
> > not have to have special knowledge to get the features they have
> > already enabled in their global USE flags.
> >
> > 2) It makes it easy for "power" users to not have libflashsupport
> > actually install anything by disabling all the USE flags.  This will
> > take 3 steps:
> > - Notice at upgrade or install time that there's this new 'extra'
> > package being installed
> > - Enable the 'vanilla' flag for netscape-flash
> > - Continue with upgrade or install
> >
> > Also, having all of the ssl/gnutls/pulseaudio/esd/oss flags turned
> > off for libflashsupport will have the effect of not actually
> > installing the library, so the only added cost there is one more
> > entry in the list of installed packages, which I hope you will
> > agree is basically zero.
>
> Installing a package without really installing it is EVIL. The db
> should represent whats installed on the system, otherwise it will
> become very very confusion for users.

Well, I was actually going to have it install a single README file
explaining why the package didn't install very much.  I could of
course leave in the 'libflashsupport.so' library that would basically do
nothing... Really, this is just a shortcut so that if you don't want any
of the features libflashsupport provides you will not have the small
overhead of having the plugin load libflashsupport.so when it starts up.

For added information, here is what I understand happens when you load
the existing Adobe flash plugin:

 - Check for a plugin called /usr/lib/libflashsupport.so
 - If found, load it, and use any of the functions provided there to
support alternate audio, video, or ssl features.
 - If not found, carry on and use the default set of features: ALSA
sound output and no SSL support.

So the possibilities for people not wanting the added features are:
 - Have no such file called /usr/lib/libflashsupport.so
 - Have this library, but do not have it supply any functions.  I think
this is less desirable than just not installing libflashsupport.so

-- 
Jim Ramsay
Gentoo/Linux Developer (rox,gkrellm)